Are biometric ID cards a panacea
for social ills or a foolish and dangerous fetish?

Biometric identity cards are NOT the
answer

The present Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, Mr Charles Clarke, his
predecessor Mr David Blunkett and the opposition leader Mr Michael Howard,
have indicated that they consider that biometric identity cards have some important
role to play in making Britain a safer and happier place to live. We think
they are wrong, and that their ideas are foolish and extremely dangerous.

What to do to reduce or prevent terrorism, ideologically inspired violence,
illegal immigration, and organised crime? That is the question.
Some people think that biometric identity cards will provide some sort of
cure for all of these ills. Is that a rational and sensible conclusion,
or is it just the foolishness of unwise minds?

National identitification schemes have potential dangers as well as
potential benefits. We have often read reports of the former
Home Secretary touting the supposed benefits of his biometric identity
card schemes but we have never read anything that indicates he, or
his colleagues in government, understood the potential dangers and
likely problems. We think the scheme is dangerous folly and
the articles on this website explain why.

... the ordinary people, have just two
defences against totalitarian and barbaric regimes. The first
defence is to ensure that no government or other organization ever
acquires enough power to make oppression possible. The second
defence, if the first has failed, is to be able to hide when necessary.
A system of biometric identification defeats both defences.